Suchergebnisse

Entrepreneurship is the driving force of economic development and progress. A successful state, first of all, provides favourable conditions motivating the businesses to grow and flourish. Presently, the European Union is developing unevenly with multiple economic misbalances across the community, the West and the North being more competitive than the South and the East. The aim of the present research is to examine the framework of interdependence between the degree to which the governance quality and economic freedom in the European Union are supporting entrepreneurial activities and the performance of the community in terms of entrepreneurial innovation. The results reached through applying both qualitative and quantitative analyses show that the interdependence between entrepreneurial innovation and regulatory efficiency is strong for many of the European Union states which is determined by multiple factors including the institutional and economic ones. Also, the present paper underlines the importance of the proper regulatory framework for the efficient development of business innovation. The future research on this matter could consider in depth the impact of socio-cultural environment, its influence on the quality of governance and the impact of both upon the European entrepreneurial innovation.

The prismatic construction of the European legal order -- The relationship between European law, economics, and finance -- Technical expertise and democratic legitimacy in European law over the last quarter century -- The ability of administrative law to adapt and expand as the European legal oder takes shape -- The science of administrative law and the role of the jurist in the construction of the European legal system -- The law in the new European legal order.

Intro -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1 Introduction -- New Modes of Lobbying for New Modes of Governance: The Theoretical Framework in a Nutshell -- Theoretical and Societal Contribution of the Book -- A Comparative Case Study Research Design -- A Guide Through the Book and Its Case Studies -- References -- 2 Interest Representation in Experimentalist Governance: A Theoretical Framework -- Experimentalist Governance and the Role of Interest Groups in Theory -- Formalising Improvisation in Implementation -- The Role of Interest Groups in Experimentalist Practice -- New Modes of Governance as New Opportunities for Interest Representation -- New Modes of Governance and Interest-Group Involvement: Intentions and Effects -- Interest-Group Behaviour in New Institutional Environments -- The Theoretical Framework of This Book -- Changing Institutions and Adaptive Interest-Group Behaviour: A Pragmatist Approach -- References -- 3 Studying the Reciprocal Interaction Between Experimentalism and Lobbying: Research Design -- Reconstructing Processes and Tracing Causal Pathways -- From Policy-Making Conditions to Lobbying Behaviour (and Back) -- Comparative Case-Study Design -- Data Collection: Interview Selection Technique -- References -- 4 Dual Lobbying in the Industrial Emissions Directive -- Introduction -- Previously Existing Governance Framework: The IPPC Directive -- Bones of Contention in the IED Process: Advocating Frameworks for Action -- Channels for Interaction and Involvement -- The de Jure Pathway to Extended Interest-Group Involvement: The 'Sevilla Process' -- The Sevilla Process on Paper -- The Sevilla Process in Practice -- Equal Access, Equal Influence? -- Data Collection: Whose Data for Whom? -- Responsiveness of the Sevilla Process: Slow Response to Quick Development? (or Vice Versa?).

Tax competition poses two problems for international cooperation: defection and distributive conflict. Multilateral cooperation to stop tax competition may fail because states face incentives to renege on their promises or because they face adverse distributional consequences, either of which makes cooperation an unattractive option for them. Conventional wisdom in international relations concentrates on the first problem, highlighting that the problem of tax competition resembles a Prisoner's dilemma. We argue instead that it is the peculiar distributional consequences of tax competition which explain why all attempts to regulate it cooperatively have failed. Combining theoretical analysis with empirical research on the European Union's unsuccessful record of tax cooperation, we show how distributive, within-group conflict amongst potential cooperators interacts with the constraints imposed by a non-cooperating outside world to make multilateral tax cooperation an especially elusive goal for international collaboration. ; Der Steuerwettbewerb stellt die internationale Kooperation vor ein Defektionsund ein Verteilungsproblem. Die Kooperation kann scheitern, weil Kooperationszusagen opportunistisch ausgebeutet werden oder weil Verteilungskonflikte verhindern, daß es überhaupt zu solchen Zusagen kommt. Die bisherige Literatur hat sich fast ausschließlich auf das erste Problem konzentriert. Sie zeigt, daß der Steuerwettbewerb die Struktur eines Gefangenendilemmas hat und erklärt dadurch das regelmäßige Scheitern von Kooperationsversuchen. Wir argumentieren dagegen, daß dieses Scheitern in erster Linie auf Verteilungsprobleme zurückzuführen ist. Modelltheoretische Überlegungen und empirische Befunde aus dem europäischen Binnenmarkt zeigen, wie Verteilungskonflikte sowohl zwischen den potentiellen Kooperationspartnern als auch zwischen diesen und dritten Staaten den Steuerwettbewerb zu einem schwer lösbaren Kooperationsproblem werden lassen.

Die Diskussion über die Feinstaubregelung der EU-Richtlinie 1999/30/EG ist ein prototypisches Beispiel für den Verlauf einer öffentlichen Debatte über europäische Gesetzgebungsverfahren. In diesen öffentlichen Auseinandersetzungen geht es nicht nur um das jeweilige Sachthema, sondern auch um die Definition von Verantwortung für gesetzliche Regelungen und deren Folgen. Die beteiligten Akteure weisen sich einander Schuld für Entscheidungen und Versäumnisse im politischen Prozess zu und attribuieren sich wechselseitig die Verantwortung für entstandene Problemlagen. Und sehr häufig schneidet in diesem Prozess des öffentlichen Aushandelns von Schuldigen die EU nicht gut ab. Das hier vorgestellte Forschungsprojekt untersucht zum einen die Verteilung von Verantwortungsattributionen in der massenmedialen Berichterstattung, klärt also, ob und in welchem Ausmaß die EU in der öffentlichen Darstellung tatsächlich "immer schuld" ist. Dazu werden Annahmen über mögliche Ursachen einer solchen systematischen Benachteiligung der EU in der Auseinandersetzung um Schuldzuschreibungen getestet. Der vorliegende Beitrag skizziert den theoretischen Hintergrund, die zentralen Hypothesen und die Methode des von der DFG geförderten Projekts. Die Autoren sind noch nicht in der Lage, Ergebnisse des Projekts zu präsentieren, konzentrieren sich aber stattdessen auf die Darstellung der Hypothesen und des entwickelten methodischen Instrumentariums. Ziel des Projekts ist es, anhand einer quantifizierenden Inhaltsanalyse von zwei deutschen und zwei britischen überregionalen Tageszeitungen im Zeitverlauf von 1994 bis 2003 die Zuschreibungsmuster in und durch die Medien zu untersuchen. (ICD2)

The European Union (ue) has combined decision making processes based on unanimity and on majority voting, mainly owing to the recognition that, depending on the context, they present valuable advantages as well as shortcomings. Thus, the EU has so far followed a rather pragmatic course. The future seems to lie along this same path, not favouring one decision- making process per se over the other, but combining unanimity and majority voting according to the needs and possibilities of the specific issue at hand. ; URL: http://www.revistaei.uchile.cl/index.php/REI/issue/view/1917

In this paper we use a generalized entropy index such as the Theil index to analyze regional inequalities in Europe. We proved that there is a synchronization between the convergence and catching-up process of objective 1 regions towards the EU15 average with the reform of the EU regional policy. During the period 1982-1988 the Theil index shows that inequalities between objective 1 regions and non-objective 1 regions have increased while from 1989 onwards the reduction in the inequalities between these two groups has been the norm. We also remark the fact that there are high disparate rates of growth among objective 1 regions both within countries and across countries but our computations show also a trend towards a more balanced growth among objective 1 regions within and across EU countries. This success of the European Union regional policy in objective 1 regions will mean a big opportunity for Central and Eastern European countries and hence the increases in competition arising from an enlarged European market combined with a suitable regional development policy should in the future boost the growth of those countries. In the last part of the paper we made a simulation for the funding envelope from 2007, based on the 2000-2006 budget. We show that the figures of the Agenda 2000 provide enough financial support for 90% of the total CEEC population and for 75% of "current" objective 1 population. Key Words: Regional Policy, European Enlargement, Central and Eastern European Countries, Strategic Planning, Regional Growth, Regional Development

"In recent years, China, the US, and the EU and its Member States have either promulgated new national laws and regulations or drastically revised existing ones to exert more rigorous government control over inward foreign direct investment (FDI). Such government control concerns the establishment of an ex-ante review regime of FDI in the host state in sectors that are considered as 'sensitive' or 'strategic', with an aim to mitigate the security-related implications. This monograph conducts a systematic and up-to-date comparative study of the national security review regimes of China, the US, and the EU, using Germany as an exampling Member State. It answers a central research question of how domestic law should be formulated to adequately protect national security of the host state whilst posing minimum negative impacts to the free flow of cross-border investment. In addition to discussing the latest development of the national security review regimes in aforementioned jurisdictions and identifying their commonalities and disparities, this monograph establishes a normative framework regarding the design of a national security review regime in general and proposes specific legislative recommendations to further clarify the law"--

Madame Guigou's prediction that a "single judicial space" might be in place by the year 2020 signals a brave new horizon for the rule of law in the European Union. Yet even her dramatic claim fails to convey the range, depth, and momentum of changes wrought by the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam in the realm of justice. The European Union is installing new infrastructure upon which to build a "genuine European area of justice." This "European judicial area" constitutes a key component of the "area of freedom, security and justice" ("AFSJ"). The Amsterdam Treaty added the AFSJ as a dimension of the Union, in order to promote the free movement of persons. "EUstitia" is a neologism that aims to capture both pragmatic and aspirational aspects of this new European governance project. The term is used here to refer solely to the civil law component of the AFSJ. This article both examines EUstitia's key features, and explores the implications of institutionalizing civil justice in the European Union. In particular, it contextualizes and examines measures that have been taken, proposed, or planned to establish the "genuine European area of justice" since the Amsterdam Treaty entered into effect in May 1999. EUstitia comprises the "communitarization" of private international law, together with other measures related to "judicial cooperation in civil matters." The European Union's efforts to create a "genuine area of justice . . . based on the principles of transparency and democratic control" have been rapid and dramatic. Yet, however remarkable the initial burst of activity, the European Union has just crossed the threshold of this burgeoning field of law- and policy-making. The developments surveyed in this article are the leading edge of a wave that will alter the European legal landscape in the years ahead.

As of 2010, there is an increasing authoritarian political structure in Hungary. Winning the elections, the Fidesz government led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán makes constitutional amendments in line with the party's purposes, guides the media outlets according to its interests, and silences the opponents. The West, which supports democracy even in other countries, has had to struggle with rising authoritarianism within itself. In this study, the rising authoritarianism in Europe and the position of the EU is examined. The study deals with the issue of authoritarianism in Hungary after evaluating the literature on authoritarianism. In the present study, which includes some comparisons with Turkey, a case study has been carried out. It has been conducted through document analysis method, taking into account the reports published by the Venice Commission and Council of Europe. As a result, it is emphasized how the EU remains weak in preventing authoritarianism and that authoritarianism can be not only in nonWestern countries but also in the West

The European Union has developed policies & instruments that address -- both directly & indirectly -- sexual violence in conflict & beyond. Policy areas that are important in this respect include human rights, gender equality, development cooperation, humanitarian aid & conflict prevention. Adapted from the source document.